Congress

Tim Scott keeps quiet as Fed independence comes under threat

Published

8 months ago

January 13, 2026

As Washington erupted over the Justice Department’s subpoena of Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, a Republican lawmaker at the center of the dispute is keeping silent.

That would be Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina, who presided over a June hearing of the Senate Banking Committee where he and other Republicans quizzed Powell about the Fed’s pending renovation projects. Powell’s answers from the meeting are now the subject of a perjury investigation, the Fed chair revealed Sunday — the apparent culmination of months of attacks from the president.

Many lawmakers of both parties quickly spoke out in protest of the probe and in favor of Fed independence — including several Republican members of Scott’s own committee — but Scott himself has so far remained mum as he tries to advance major cryptocurrency legislation this week. In addition to serving as Banking chair — where he leads oversight of the Federal Reserve — Scott also chairs the Senate GOP campaign arm, which requires him to work closely with Trump and his orbit.

“I already said no,” he told reporters who repeatedly pressed him for comment as he entered the Capitol Monday.

Scott’s silence is not unusual — he does not respond to questions in the Capital hallways. Still, it was conspicuous as Republican after Republican spoke out against the apparent targeting of the Fed chairman — starting almost immediately Sunday night when Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina not only objected to the move but said he would use his vote on the Banking Committee to block any future Fed nominee until the investigation is resolved.

Also speaking out Monday was Scott’s House counterpart, Financial Services Chair French Hill, who called Powell a “man of integrity” and said the investigation threatened “sound monetary policy decisions.” Senate Majority Leader John Thune, meanwhile, called for the probe to be “resolved quickly.”

“I want to see [the Fed] operate in an independent way free of politics,” he added.

Among the questions left unaddressed by Scott is whether he shares his GOP colleagues’ concerns about Fed independence or feels misled by the June testimony, where Powell sought to rebut allegations that Fed officials had let the costs of an ambitious headquarters renovation spiral out of control.

Pressed by Scott on accusations that the rehab project was needlessly lavish — many of them amplified by Trump and his allies, such as reports of a private elevator and garden terrace — Powell responded that many of the claims were “flatly misleading” and had long since been dropped from the plans.

Scott has generally avoided weighing in on questions about the Fed’s independence as Trump has taken aim at the central bank and its longtime chair. He appeared with Trump last year when the president went to tour the renovation project at the Fed’s Constitution Avenue headquarters. He unsuccessfully ran for president against Trump for the 2024 nomination, but never broke with him personally, was on Trump’s VP shortlist and has won praise from the president after he took office a second time.

Neither the Justice Department nor the Federal Reserve have detailed what information investigators are seeking, but a prior Justice Department perjury referral brought by Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) cited contradictions between Powell’s statements and plans the Fed submitted to a federal review agency. Luna’s letter references answers Powell gave to Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) during the Banking hearing last year after Scott first aired concerns about the renovation.

News of the probe caught some White House aides, GOP lawmakers and Wall Street players off guard — especially after Powell himself recorded a videotaped statement calling it part of a Trump administration intimidation campaign.

That includes members of Scott’s committee. Republicans on the panel met privately Monday evening to discuss the cryptocurrency bill he wants to push through the panel this week — a measure that is backed by the Trump administration and many of the president’s allies in the crypto industry.

During the meeting, Scott did not address how he or how the panel would approach the Powell investigation, according to one attendee, who said the South Carolina Republican has his hands full trying to get an agreement on the cryptocurrency bill.

A bigger headache could be coming down the pike: Scott could find it difficult to move a successor through his committee later this year when Powell’s term as Fed chair expires — with even Thune acknowledging moving a nominee could be a challenge.

Tillis said Sunday night he would not advance a Fed nominee, including filling the upcoming chair vacancy, “until this legal matter is fully resolved.”

Tillis’ opposition alone is enough to block the panel from being able to advance a Trump nominee to the full Senate on party lines given its 13-11 member breakdown.

But he’s far from alone among Banking Committee Republicans who have raised alarm bells over the investigation. While Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) called Powell a “bad” Fed chair, he added, “I do not believe, however, that he is a criminal.”

Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.), a Banking Committee member, said if administration officials thought Powell had committed perjury, then they needed to back up the accusations. He added, “I would be stunned if he had done anything wrong.”

“We need this like we need a hole to the head,” Kennedy said, warning of a possible spike in interest rates as markets lose faith in Fed independence.

Powell also reached out to at least two Republicans who do not serve on the Banking Committee, with Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska describing calls from the Fed chair to reporters. Thune said in a brief interview that Powell had not called him, but that he’s spoken to other GOP senators who had contact.

“I believe strongly in the independence of the Federal Reserve, and I know Jay Powell to be a person of integrity,” Collins told reporters Monday, cautioning that she had not yet reviewed his comments at the hearing.

But she added that “one can’t help but wonder if it has more to do with the chairman’s resistance to pressure from the White House when it comes to interest rates than it does his testimony at the hearing.”

Jennifer Scholtes and Jasper Goodman contributed to this report.

Congress

Appeals court’s Capitol steps ruling may signal trouble for Trump on media ban

Published

1 hour ago

September 22, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

A federal appeals court ruling Tuesday on demonstrators’ access to the steps of the Capitol could bode poorly for President Donald Trump’s attempt to ban three media organizations from the White House.

The majority opinion, written by Trump appointee Neomi Rao, concluded that the East Steps of the Capitol are a “nonpublic forum” — just like most areas of the White House grounds, including the press facilities. While the government may impose restrictions on access to those nonpublic areas, the limits must be “viewpoint neutral,” apply “objective, workable standards” and not permit officials to exercise “unbridled discretion over a forum’s use,” the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals panel concluded.

“A regulation that grants the government arbitrary control over who may speak invites the suppression of disfavored viewpoints and undermines the First Amendment’s core protections,” wrote Rao, who was joined in the majority by Judge Karen Henderson, a George H.W. Bush appointee.

The ruling, on the eve of a hearing over restoring White House accessfor Blue Light News, BLN and MS NOW, reaffirms the D.C. Circuit’s longstanding First Amendment precedents at an inopportune time for Trump. The president has explicitly described his ban on the three outlets as a punishment for publishing what he calls “fake news.”

“Fake News people and publications that only write negatively, and who violate our National Security by writing false and defamatory stories with unknown ‘sources,’ shouldn’t be allowed access to the most important Office anywhere in the World,” Trump said on social media Monday.

The outlets have said their access was revoked because the White House objected to their reporting and that the ban “threatens press freedom and the public’s right to independent journalism free from government interference.”

The D.C. Circuit would hear any appeals in the litigation over Trump’s media ban, and Trump has in fact already said he anticipates filing an appeal, presuming that he will be dealt a defeat in district court.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The D.C. Circuit’s Tuesday ruling stemmed from a lawsuit brought by Patrick Mahoney, a clergyman who sought to hold prayer vigils and demonstrations on the East Steps of the Capitol several months after the Jan. 6, 2021 attack, which resulted in new access restrictions. His permit was denied in part based on Capitol Police regulations that prohibit public demonstrations on the steps unless they are sponsored by a member of Congress.

Though the case has inched through the courts for years, Tuesday’s ruling resolves a key question, labeling the Capitol’s East Steps a “nonpublic forum” for which congressional authorities may restrict public access — in part because lawmakers use those steps to enter and exit the building.

But allowing members of Congress to sponsor gatherings on the steps creates an arbitrary system, the majority concluded.

“Because the protection of unpopular speech and advocacy is central to the First Amendment, we cannot leave it to the selective enforcement of members,” Rao wrote.

Notably, Rao’s opinion cites a D.C. Circuit ruling last year that concluded “it would be unreasonable to control access to White House press facilities through standardless discretion.”

The third judge on the panel, Clinton appointee Judith Rogers, dissented, but her opinion was even more protective of free-speech rights.

Rogers said she agreed with her colleagues that the “selective exception” for demonstrations sponsored by lawmakers was unconstitutional. However, she said she would have held that the lower portion of the Capitol steps was a public forum where the government was obligated to permit protest activity.

Congress

Ohio stations ignore Max Miller’s legal threat, run Democratic challenger’s ad

Published

3 hours ago

September 22, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Ohio television stations are so far choosing to ignore a legal threat from GOP Rep. Max Miller and broadcast an ad from his Democratic challenger centered on the allegations of domestic abuse Miller faces from his ex-wife.

A lawyer for Miller demanded that Cleveland-area television station WKYC not publish “false, malicious, and defamatory statements” in a Thursday cease-and-desist letter first reported by Blue Light News.

WKYC ran the ad Tuesday morning, according to ad-tracking firm AdImpact, as did two other Cleveland stations, WEWS and WOIO.

The 30-second ad from the Poindexter campaign and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee depicts a local sheriff listing the accusations levied against Miller levied by Emily Moreno, his ex-wife and the daughter of Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio). Miller has repeatedly denied the abuse allegations.

“The ad mentioned is filled with lies,” Miller spokesperson Abigail Angelos said in a statement. “Each of the statements in the advertisement are entirely unsubstantiated and contradicted by evidence.”

Representatives for the three TV stations did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Poindexter responded to the legal threat by tearing up the cease-and-desist letter in a campaign video.

Before the ad, Poindexter had focused his campaign on his working-class background and cost-of-living issues. Now the campaign has gotten intensely personal: The Democrat is on air publicizing Miller’s family dispute, while Miller’s campaign is lobbing accusations about Poindexter’s past run-ins with law enforcement in an ad paid for by the NRCC.

NRCC spokesperson Zach Bannon said in a statement that Poindexter is “completely out of touch with Northeast Ohio” and is a “life-long criminal” who is “fully embracing the radical far-left socialist agenda.”

Aaron Pellish contributed to this report.

Congress

GOP Senator wants to subpoena Donald Trump Jr. over Russian-funded wedding

Published

6 hours ago

September 22, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

A Senate Republican from Utah is asking the Senate Judiciary Committee to subpoena Donald Trump Jr. following reports that the president’s son had parts of his wedding paid for by a Russian oligarch with ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Sen. John Curtis’ request, which comes following a news story by ProPublica, marks a significant break with President Donald Trump from a member of his own party.

“Questions have arisen about the relationships of President Trump’s eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., with foreign business figures and the acceptance of significant gifts. These include a lavish wedding afterparty, on a private island, provided by Russian oligarch Umar Kremlev, who reportedly traveled to China as part of a delegation accompanying Vladimir Putin shortly before giving the gift,” Curtis wrote in a letter dated Sept. 21 to Senate Judiciary Chair Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and the panel’s top Democrat, Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois.

“These concerns are compounded by Donald Trump Jr.’s active promotion of family-backed cryptocurrency ventures, his continued pursuit of international real estate deals involving direct meetings with foreign heads of state, and his reported investments in defense contracting,” Curtis added.

Curtis, also noting the profits the Trump family has made through cryptocurrency deals, indicated this incident is part of a broader pattern where the relatives of U.S. presidents can improperly leverage their proximity to power.

In addition to probing Trump Jr., Curtis asked the Senate Judiciary Committee to subpoena President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, who over the years found himself enveloped in numerous self-dealing scandals. Both men, he said, should testify “regarding their past business dealings, relationships with foreign individuals and entities, gifts, or other benefits they have received, and any instances in which their relationship to the President was invoked or understood to provide value.”

“The country should not have to accept one standard for the family of a Republican president and another for the family of a Democratic president. Nor should congressional oversight begin and end when control of the White House changes hands,” Curtis said.

The White House did not immediately return a request for comment Wednesday, but it’s unlikely that Trump, who demands loyalty from the GOP, will consider the bipartisan nature of Curtis’ request to be anything other than a personal affront.

Trump said in a statement he has “no idea who Umar is” and that he has “never heard of him, and he didn’t pay for Don and Bettina’s wedding, which took place at a totally different location, and on a different day from the wedding.”

Kremlev is president of the International Boxing Association and received an Order of Friendship medal from Putin for his “contribution to international sport and his commitment to the global boxing family.” He’s also been sanctioned by the Ukrainian government for his ties to Putin.

A spokesperson for Judiciary Committee Republicans confirmed Grassley was in receipt of the letter but could not commit to investigating the matter. The spokesperson noted that hearing dates are extremely limited through the end of 2026 and investigative hearings usually take months of background work before they can be scheduled.

It’s sure to be an issue Democrats pursue if they win the majority in either chamber next year. Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), the ranking member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, wrote to the White House and Donald Trump Jr. last week demanding information about the president’s son’s ties to Kremlev.

Cheyanne M. Daniels contributed to this report.